So, Tony Abbott was out and about this morning trumpeting the claim that the Victorian election result meant “Labor’s brand is toxic”. If you actually think about what that sentence means, it’s a fairly incoherent assertion. Nevertheless, there’s been the usual round of opining that the Coalition has unstoppable momentum, blah, blah, blah.
In fact, this is the first time in Australia that the Coalition has won majority government (if, as expected, the Victorian LNP ends up with 45 or 46 seats) since John Howard in 2004.
Recently, as Lefty E pointed out in comments on Saturday night, we’ve seen Labor form government in Tasmania (with The Greens) and South Australia, and the Liberals forming a government in Western Australia, but only after hard bargaining with the WA Nationals and without a formal Coalition agreement.
Despite swings of up to 10% in some seats, Labor appeared to be able to defend some of its turf quite well in large parts of Victoria, particularly in regional areas. 42 or 43 seats is by no means a shameful haul for a losing party, and conversely, the Liberals and Nationals’ performance is not overwhelming.
The other way of coming at this question is to point out that each election and each polity has its own dynamic. In Queensland and New South Wales, 2009 and 2007 were elections tired governments probably should have lost, but ended up securing decent though reduced majorities. No doubt the chickens will come home to roost next year and in 2012 (though in Queensland, you can never entirely discount the ability of the LNP to shoot itself in the foot – witness John-Paul Langbroek’s weird two month long reshuffle and the growing influence of “happy clapper” evangelical Liberals). But that will no doubt happen anyway, no matter what someone in Ecucha or Fitzroy thinks of the “Labor brand” after the Brumby government.
It’s also never proved in the past to be a particular bugbear for a federal government of one complexion to face state governments of another. Things are probably more intertwined through COAG than they have been in many policy areas, but then, a lot of what goes down there is not particularly politically charged in a partisan sense. John Brumby had a few stoushes with Kevin Rudd, and Kristina Keneally’s having a few with Julia Gillard. No doubt Ted Baillieu will have a few too, but next time there’s a federal election, Labor won’t have to worry about the backlash against state ALP governments in the three largest East Coast states. Gillard Labor will be judged on its own record, not on whether the trains run on time.
Lastly, “momentum” going into Christmas has to be a fiction. If and when most people start paying attention to federal politics again in February, I very much doubt there’ll be lots of people saying “Oh, I’m thinking better of Mr Abbott because the Coalition won the Victorian election in November”. It’s a pure instance of press gallery/political class bulldust.
NB: General comments on the election result should go on this thread.
But this very web site has been an absolute have for those who proclaim the Labor “brand” to be irredeemably toxic, and that the dialectic of history lies with The Greens, as they destroy the morally bankrupt ALP inner city seat by inner city seat.
Check the comments on this election eve post:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/08/20/why-im-voting-for-the-greens-tomorrow/
It’s hardly surprising to see Tony Abbott run this self-serving line. The flip side to his logic is that the small “l” liberalism of Baillieu was far more palatable in Victoria than Tony’s extremism – which gives hope to Turnbull’s leadership aspirations.
@1 – Not sure of your point, Terry. It’s not a claim I think any of the actual bloggers have made in posts here. If we could please contain Labor-Greens stoushing to the most recent relevant thread, that would be appreciated. Another round of it is not on topic for this one.
The toxic labor theme helps the msm and Abbott divert attention away from fact that Gillard has succeeded in structurally separating Telstra and in doing so paved way for nbn. If anything is toxic it must be Abbott. His days of running his wrecking ball strategy must be coming to an end. With both sides now conceding Jg will probably run a full term and with the prospect of her getting a carbon price and some action on the Murray, Abbott had better start coming up with some policies. Of course with msm still calling nbn a win for Abbott it may take a while for penny to drop. I think msm will be most surprised when party rolls Abbott sometime early next year.
You are being a pedant on the WA coalition.
That’s what she’s afraid of.
Yep, I think the more interesting speculation is why the LNP has done so poorly against tired administrations, and why so many elections at all levels are close. It suggests all political brands are tarnished.
At state level, I suspect peivatisations have just bade the whole business seem less relevant . It doesn’t matter who runs it – it’ll still be crap.
Agree that Captain Catholic’s politics are so toxic they are not palatable to Victorians
I think it was Cast Iron Helen who made a very astute observation that Abbott knows full well how toxic his brand is – in a Federal election Labor gained a small swing. Offer the electorate a Liberal of moderate hue and a government changes.
So keep on running the line of spin and waste Tones, but the accusation of a failure to deliver is a chicken happy to roost in either major party’s henhouse.
What I can’t read from north of the border is how much of this ALP loss is due to 11 year itch, due to arrogance/incompetence and how unexpected was it really?
@Bernice – I think a lot of it was ennui and annoyance with the incumbents rather than any attachment to “brand”. Maybe if the weather had been better, we’d still have a Labor state government? I work every Saturday, and people over 40 were really interested and engaged in the Federal election, but the most said about this one was surprise that there was no waiting for vote.
I understood Kim to be referring to Abbott’s incoherent rhetoric rather than, necessarily, his apparent meaning. ‘Toxic brand’ is a hopelessly mixed metaphor, always a sure sign of woolly thinking. The ‘brand’ is the label and the packaging, but what poisons you is the contents.
Mindlessly using the word ‘brand’ is toxic enough; likewise the implicit genuflection to the ideology of advertising.
It’s no coincidence that as the ALP continues it’s march to the Right their vote keeps sinking. When given the choice between the right-wing Liberal Party and the centre-right Liberal Party-lite, a lot of people opt to vote for the real thing.
“Maybe if the weather had been better, we’d still have a Labor state government?”
I favour this theory lilacsigil. Twas a perfect day for the wets!
It’s probably a good thing for Federal Labor and I wouldn’t be surprised if Gillard was on the phone today saying; “I feel for you comrade. But, concede.”
I never saw it doing Howard any harm when there was wall to wall Labor State governments. And what hasn’t been much commented on was that Federal Labor has got all its legislation through since the election.
Every election is different. Victorians loath the Mad Monk, but Big Ted looks quite reasonable to many voters.
Great topic, Kim.
So, when I think of McDonalds and the golden arches, I think — “Great times.”, “Greta taste,”, “family”, etc. Actually, I think, Cheeseburger Winyard Station => $1.25, plastic, BSE, Confectionary? — whatever. The Brand stands for something. A Brand is a sign of quality, or qualities. It also has to do with identity (Holden: Good, Ford: Bad.)
So, I was wondering if anyone here on the board feels like they can explain what the right wing of the Labor Party want? What do they stand for? How are they trying to make things better?
I don’t agree with ‘toxic Labor brand’ – although I think that would be a fair call across most of the nation.
I think the Bracks/Brumby government will be seen as one of the best Conservative State administrations ever. Like most right-wing governments, they lacked vision, but I think they’ll be (rightly or wrongly) remembered as good managers. They lost the election because Kennett was long enough ago that most Victorians have forgotten how hateful, socially destructive and ideologically blinded the Liberals are. Victorians didn’t reject Abbott because he was a Liberal, they’re just adult enough to find racism a bit distasteful, and flamboyant insanity a little disturbing. Kennett wasn’t racist or homophobic, he just ran the state like a cross between Thatcher and The Joker. He wasn’t mad, he was just intensely theoretical.
Also, people who believe that Baillieu might be a good guy like Turnbull are making two mistakes.
the utter tosh of those such as jacques de molay deserves refutation. and i’m happy to pick up the cudgels for the right because bracks and brumby and hulls were all of the right.
The bracks/brumby government enacted a human rights act, passed laws decriminalising abortion, enacted legislation protecting outworkers, committed to tough climate change targets, had a $1 billion public housing rebuilding program, had incredibly forward looking and intersting agendas on indigenous employment, health and education reforms, moved away from tnhe duopoly of tatts and tabcorp in gaming machines to increase the control of local clubs in that industry, ran a successful health system directed at sensible case mix funding did not pursue a lock em up policy (for those who are interested look at incarceration rates between nsw and vic).
They weren’t perfect but the ongoing nonsense on this website of pretending there was nary a struck match between labor and the libs should look at the picture in its entirety
Durutticolumn’s comment illustrates best Kim’s point. Fine and others echoe the line and I go along with much of it.
But don’t forget Joe’s cautionary point, 16.
Baillieu got 51% TPP in Victoria.
Abbott got 44% TPP in Victoria.
Who is toxic?
Because it’s worth saying twice.
“… committed to tough climate change targets…”.
Yet have spent nearly two decades in conflict with enviro scientists over the ranascking of the Gippsland. Otway and other carbon sinks, at the same time as we lecture poor countries on their deforestation policies?
I’ll say it third Melbournehammer.
Sadly for Abbott the Victorian stats from this year that directly apply to him don’t look anywhere near as pro-Liberal as his rhetoric sounds: Australian Labor Party led by Julia Gillard, 55.31%, Lib/Nat Coalition led by Tony Abbott, 44.69% (for a swing of +1.04 against the Coalition since the previous election).
That was him, running with a headstart, against a Labor government that had found itself in a real mess, appearances wise.
John Brumby & co. didn’t look anywhere near as weak when Bailleu came from behind to beat them.
yes, paul, ya dill, firstly, 11 years isn’t two decades, secondly, there’s very very little deforestation in Victoria, pretty much all due to urbanisation and changed agricultural practices, thirdly, they stopped Otways logging for good in 2002, fourthly, timber is carbon positive and I’m sure you’re glad they’ve all stopped logging in tropical countries, which is where we’ll get our timber from in future.
Labour has been in power for 11 years, so perhaps voters felt it was time for a change. It certainly wasn’t a landslide win for the Coalition, so God knows why Smuggles is cock-a-hoop. Oh I know why, he’s a tosser.
The point surely is not whether the Labor brand is or isn’t toxic. What recent elections have shown has been an incredible volatility. Toxicity has been swapped from brand to brand with a frightening rapidity.
As the differences between parties shrink, as politics is reduced to a competition bewteen management teams, as the party bases continue to shrink, drawing their operative cadre from an ever narrowing self-selecting pool, the numbers of “rusted on” voters shrink and we get these huge swings based on spin, media beat ups and inchoate resentment.
And it’s not just an Australian phenomenon. Look at the US where Obama as the messiah has given way to the Tea Party or Britain where the unbelievably toxic Labour Party are now ahead of the ConDem coalition in the polls.
Wilfull, wake up. The Labor parties current response to logging developed from the early nineties, with the death of the “forest coups” concept and Richo’s, then Faulkner’s failure to find comon ground between environmentlists and developers on what constitutes responsible scientifically verifiable development.
Since Labor needed timber industry money for financial reasons, we see from ’94 onwards Labor fleeing from its flirtation with enviro in the eighties, like pigs from a gun.
Or was that Gunns?
As for the an end to logging disputes in 2003, how is it that Brumby ordered his secret police to collaborate with the timber companies against antilogging activists in Gippsland, in 2010?
Well, if Labor is toxic, I’d love to know what the mad religious right of the NSW Liberal Party is. I guess, here in MSW we’ll know in March. OTOH, one can never underestimate the ability of the NSW Libs to shoot themselves in both feet. Not that I think it will happen this time round.
On a Federal level Labor might be a bit disappointing, but being a bit disappointing, but it ain’t toxic. Tony is toxic and the only thing Federal Labor has to worry about is Turnbull becoming leader of the Opposition and staying Opposition Leader long enough to run in the next Federal election as leader. If Bailleu’s victory in Victoria proves anything, it is that federally Turbull as leader could be a real dangerto the ALP.
You’d note, PB, Abbott, the broadband Luddite, was kept well away from Victoria, where he could have done inestimable damage to the libs cause.
Instead, “human face” Baillieu was given plenty of room to do his thing. Brumby should have kept off the back of the Greens and manned up against his real opponents; picking on them instead just made them (labor) look like brutalists.
Dear Mr. Melbournehammer,
The “Human Rights Act” was brushed aside in May of this year by allowing Police to search people without reasonable suspicion.
The Abortion Law changed nothing. More window dressing.
Outworkers were being paid $1 an hour!! I mean that was a human rights abuse.
The above is all advertising. At best nice gestures.
The Labor Party are paper thin and Jacques de Molay is absolutely right. What does even right wing labor do for the unions? They’ve given up on increasing membership and the unions are kept alive by cozy political relationships, which alienates them further.
Ah PB, it’s horrible isn’t it? After 5 servings of baked beans on toast, where the enjoyment halves inversely each serving, the prospect of eating the luke-warm faeces, that NSW state Liberals have on offer still can’t raise much excitement.
Can we privatise the NSW state gov.? Maybe a consortium of property developers could manage all that health and education stuff better? Or, some investors from Asia or Europe? And we wouldn’t have to vote anymore… What about a franchise?
joe @ 32,
Indeed. Clarke and company give me the heeby-jeebies, and, once the Libs are in power I don’t trust O’Farrell’s ability to keep them under control. Living in a state run by Opus Dei ain’t my idea of fun. What’s worse, Abbott gives Clarke and his fanatics his full endorsement, so far as I’m aware. Now that IS toxic.
I suppose the only consolation is it will be a one term government if that bunch of nutters is let off the leash. The electorate showed when it re-elected Iemma and a tired Labor Government that they had absolutely no time for the Lib. Inquisition.
When Abbot talks of ‘toxic’ infection,
The shrinks would say that’s just projection
Of his own , dark, inner reflection.
Gillard, guilty of lies, deception?
No! He’s the one who needs correction!
So clearly lacking circumspection
In his manic drive to win election,
Spewing bile in every direction!
In some psychiatrists’ perception
He’d be an ideal candidate – for section.
Yeah Patricia!
Maybe not yet, but it’s good to see NSW Labour doing their best to make it so… they want to take on liability for carbon capture and storage systems:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/taxpayers-bear-risk-for-carbon-dumps-20101129-18e0m.html?skin=text-only
Is the waste more like radioactive waste or asbestos, do you think?
Here’s hoping the ALP + GRN and/or Mayne get a blocking 20 votes total in the upper house.
That’s looking the more likely result, but 21 coalition is also possible, and wioll be a big problem.
Get yer scrutineers out! People may not be aware, but the 3rd GRN only got up last time in Western Metro because GRN scrutineers found 200 miscounted votes.
Somehow Labor has been conned into believing that the electorate actually wants the conservatives policies and the secret is to get so close to the conservative position that it comes down to personalities and perceptions of competence. We have seen the result of this thinking in Vic and federally. Labor has to come up with a better answer to “why vote Labor?”
The other problem facing Labor is the Green alliance. My perception is that the Green leadership in Vic is far below the standard in Tas and federally – So the performance of the Greens starts to weaken Labor as soon as people start talking about a hung parliament = Labor government with Greens support.
Melbournehammer at 18 has got it right. Can I add that Mr Brumby and Victorian Labor have a vision of a fairer state. Witness the pipeline network to deliver water across the state and the schools rebuilding program. Big Ted cannot see past the leafy eastern suburbs. He is wishy washy and will do what his advisers (Kennet and Georgiou) tell him to do. He will not and cannot deliver on his promises. They are in there now looking for the financial black hole to excuse their failures.
My perception is that the Green leadership in Vic is far below the standard in Tas and federally
The Green leadership in Victoria is non-existent.
If anything is toxic it is Abbott’s brand of politics, not helped by the childish tantrums in parliament during the past week .
Surely the Libs’ power base is alert to the fact that Turnbull is their only hope in the next election despite John Winston Howard having anointed the mad monk.
Turnbull,despite having a weak and irrational leader, seems to be able to continue to project dignity and a statesmanlike demeanour; quite an achievement in this political climate.
Yep, Tezza, as others have pointed out: Abbott’s wrecking ball approach has now failed, the govt will go full term, and its having some big, big wins too, eg strucutural separation of Telstra.
Abbott’s going to have to *actually come up with some policies* now. It’ll be a real tester for him- and I dont fancy his chances of pulling it off. Not one bit.
After what has occurred in politics over the past 12 months, I’m officially weaned off making predictions. If Bronwyn Bishop ends up leading the Libs, I wouldn’t bat an eye-lid. Turnbull might decide to become a hermit and retire to a cave somewhere. Anything can happen. Oakeshott might end up PM.
It’s comforting that Georgiou is one of Baillieu’s main advisors. But, Kennett – seriously? He seems to be having few problems with reality lately. Claiming that there were assassination attempts against him when he was Premier, advising sucking on a Kool-Mint so you don’t get done for drink-driving. And he’s still the President of Hawthorn! I think the new hair-cut has done something to his brain.
Kenneth Davidson sums it up pretty well.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/labors-loss-is-explained-by-the-rail-politic-20101129-18dwp.html
Public transport probably did Labor more than longevity fatigue. The vote held up well in provincial Victoria where rail services had been rejuvenated. They fell over in eastern and southern Melbourne, among the key sufferers of the appalling public transport system. Most specifically refusing to accept that privatisation failed.
They wimped out of reclaiming the system after it had failed to meet contractual requirements. I suspect they tried to be too cute by pretending that the service was nothing to do with them. Might’ve got away with it in 06 but only once.
The rest of their performance was fairly credible, albeit water supply was another dud. Certainly they were a long way from “toxic” and that’s reflected in the overall vote.
Don Wigan:
Not sure if I’m agreeing or disagreeing in this, but Labor promised to rejuvenate our provincial rail service (the South Gippsland line – closed under Kennett) and since it’s been apparent that they lied they haven’t had a chance down here. I think the provincial Victoria that Labor cared about was somewhere up near Ballarat.
According to the front page of the South Gippsland Sentinel Times, the election was actually won by Ken Smith because we hate wind turbines and want more road funding. We also object to that ugly desalination plant, because it detracts from the natural visual splendor of our dairy farms and abattoirs.